The Perfect Goal

 

The Perfect Goal - Brazil vs. Italy, 1970

 

The 2006 World Cup begins tomorrow in Germany. The first game will be between hosts Germany and Costa Rica. Thanks to the resourcefulness of a fellow soccer fan, I will have the distinct pleasure of being able to watch the game in the company of the German military. It promises to be a raucous affair and I am busy brushing up on my rusty German. I am especially concentrating on how to say "Gooooooaaaaaaal!!!" auf Deutsch.

Instead of posting scores and match results from the games, I thought I would instead try to call attention to some memorable moments from past World Cups. And, what better way to begin than with the artistry of one Edson Arantes do Nascimento, better known to most of the world as Pelé.

In the final match of the 1970 World Cup, Brazil beat Italy 4-1 to hoist the World Cup trophy. Pelé scored one of the 4 goals. But the goal that is remembered as arguably the greatest goal in the history of the World Cup was the last goal. It was scored by Carlos Alberto who hammered home a magical pass from Pelé. The ball touched nine of Brazil’s eleven players before it found the back of the net. The Italian players were left dazed by the Brazilians as they developed the attack from deep within their own territory. The culmination came after Pelé received the ball just outside the box on the Italian end. He paused and then effortlessly pushed the ball into empty space to his right. Out of nowhere came Carlos Alberto to drive the ball into the net.

The goal was pure ballet on the field. It was Brazil at their artistic best. It was Pelé with a magical sense of the game. It is why I love the Beautiful Game.

You can click on the image above for a video of the goal. You can also read Carlos Alberto’s retelling of the goal here.

[Note: The naked guy streaking the blog will likely stay for the duration of the World Cup. You can turn him off by clicking the German word for "close" on the right hand corner.]

Posted in World Cup | 14 Comments

A Coward Meets A Violent End

Abu Musab al-ZarqawiAt approximately 6pm in the evening Iraq time on Wednesday, the thug who called himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi left this world assisted by two American-made 500 pound bombs that fell from the sky. The American military has rid Iraq of a murderer of women and children and a coward who will be missed by almost no one. President Bush and the United States Military should be hailed for assuring that there is one less evil man on Earth today. This death shows that the American military is at its best when it is backed by moral authority and clarity of mission.

This coward, however, caused significant death and destruction before he was sent off to face the Infinite Justice that now awaits him. Below is a partial list from the BBC of the horrors that were unleashed by this monster:

  • 28 Oct 2002: US diplomat Laurence Foley killed in Jordan
  • 19 Aug 2003: Bombing of UN office in Baghdad, 23 dead
  • 29 Aug 2003: Bombing of Najaf shrine killing Shia cleric Muhammad Baqr Hakim, 85 dead
  • 2 March 2004: Co-ordinated attack on Shia mosques during Ashoura ceremony, 181 dead
  • 11 May 2004: Nick Berg beheaded, first of at least nine foreign hostages killed in 2004
  • 14 Sept 2004: Car bomb targeting police recruits in Baghdad, 47 dead
  • 19 Dec 2004: Car bombs in Najaf and Karbala, 60 dead
  • 19 Aug 2005: Rocket attack in Jordan on Israel and US navy
  • 9 Nov 2005: Triple attack on hotels in Amman, 60 dead

Today is not a day to rejoice. Instead, it is a day to remember the many innocent lives that were extinguished by his rampage of killing. Many innocent Iraqi mothers and children whose names we in the West do not know have died by his command. Of all the murdered, I want to highlight two today as a way of remembering all the slaughtered.

When Zarqawi bombed the UN office in Baghdad, he took the life of Sergio Vieiro de Mello. Mr. de Mello was a humanitarian who spent nearly his entire adult life working to help the most unfortunate among us. When this man was killed the world lost a tireless supporter of Human Rights. His loss is also a personal one for me. As one of his first missions for the United Nations, Mr. de Mello served in Bangladesh in 1971 working with refugees during its war of independence.

Zarqawi, the animal, personally beheaded Nick Berg in an act of unspeakable cruelty. He also videotaped the murder in order to show how tough he was. Instead, the video stands in graphic testament to this man’s cowardice. Only a coward sees bravery in killing a bound and helpless human being.

Today this terrorist is dead. He is not martyred – he is simply ended.

Posted in Iraq, Terrorism | 11 Comments

The Alfred E. Neuman School Of Foreign Policy

Alfred E. NeumanWhat is the goal of the United States in the War on Terror? What is the plan to win the war? What is the strategy? And how do we measure success? Are we trying to win hearts and minds while defeating the terrorists militarily?

An article in the New York Times today argues that the U.S. effort of funding the Somali warlords has been counterproductive and has failed. There is a remarkable quote attributed to a senior Bush Administration official in the article that brings into focus the Bush foreign policy agenda:

"You’ve got to find and nullify enemy leadership," one senior Bush administration official said. "We are going to support any viable political actor that we think will help us with counterterrorism." [Emphasis added by me.]

Isn’t that exactly what is wrong with the Bush foreign policy?

Foreign policy that is driven by a single-minded focus on killing the enemy regardless of the consequences seems to be the hallmark of this Administration’s machinations in the War on Terror thus far. This policy is susceptible to sabotage by unscrupulous foreign forces. In order to fight "terrorists" we lay in bed with some very unsavory characters who likely pose a more significant threat to U.S. interests. Warlords and two-bit Third World power brokers transform themselves into "anti-terrorist" forces and manipulate the United States to serve their own local agendas. The military and economic might of the United States is usurped by our "friends" to settle local scores. In short, the United States is getting played.

In the War on Terror the Bush Administration has paid lip service to diplomacy, to alliance building, to containment, and other proven tools to combat a hostile foe in the international arena. Instead the Bush Administration has focused primarily on military force either directly or by supporting proxies – the old rules apparently do not apply in the post 9/11 world. This focus on military means has so far proven to be a complete failure. The Bush Administration has allied itself with Afghan warlords, with Central Asian dictators, with Shia Islamists in Iraq, and Somali warlords because all of them promised to get the "terrorists". Instead what they have gotten is more instability and chaos.

There does not appear to be any broader policy goal in Somalia or the War on Terror other than killing the enemy. Apparently the lure of funding warlords was so strong that the Bush Administration has forsaken a broader policy for a narrower "capture dead or alive" philosophy:

Among those who have criticized the C.I.A. operation as short-sighted have been senior Foreign Service officers at the United States Embassy in Nairobi. Earlier this year, Leslie Rowe, the embassy’s second-ranking official, signed off on a cable back to State Department headquarters that detailed grave concerns throughout the region about American efforts in Somalia, according to several people with knowledge of the report.

 Around that time, the State Department’s political officer for Somalia, Michael Zorick, who had been based in Nairobi, was reassigned to Chad after he sent a cable to Washington criticizing Washington’s policy of paying Somali warlords.

One American government official who traveled to Nairobi this year said officials from various government agencies working in Somalia had expressed concern that American activities in the country were not being carried out in the context of a broader policy.

"They were fully aware that they were doing so without any strategic framework," the official said. "And they realized that there might be negative implications to what they are doing."

It is then not so surprising that this policy has contributed to failure in Somalia:

Some Africa experts contend that the United States has lost its focus on how to deal with the larger threat of terrorism in East Africa by putting a premium on its effort to capture or kill a small number of high-level suspects.

Indeed, some of the experts point to the American effort to finance the warlords as one of the factors that led to the resurgence of Islamic militias in the country. They argue that American support for secular warlords, who joined together under the banner of the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism, may have helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and prompted them to launch pre-emptive strikes. The Islamic militias have been routing the warlords, and on Monday they claimed to have taken control of most of the Somali capital.

"This has blown up in our face, frankly," said John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit research organization with extensive field experience in Somalia.

After the U.S. funded warlords were routed, the Bush Administration is now ready to talk to the Islamists in Somalia:

Senior American officials indicated this week that the United States might now be willing to hold discussions with the Islamic militias, known as the Islamic Courts Union. President Bush said Tuesday that the first priority for the United States was to keep Somalia from becoming a safe haven for terrorists.

The Administration has it backwards. First you try diplomacy and then you use the military option, not the other way around.

The Somalia experience is a benchmark for the more general war on terror. The ill concieved Bush Administration strategy of "fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here" is not working.  From Kabul to Mogadishu, from Tehran to Baghdad, we are in a more dangerous world now then we were on September 12th, 2001. Its time for some grown ups at the wheel.

Posted in Foreign Policy | 1 Comment

Welcome Home

Kimberly Dozier

Bruised and battered, but not beaten, CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier returned to the United States today.

Welcome home.

 

Posted in Iraq, Media | Comments Off on Welcome Home

A Friend Of The Devil Is A Friend Of Mine

Fighting in SomaliaMeet our newest best friends: the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, or, ARPCT for short. Our latest best friends are at the vanguard of President Bush’s Global War On Terror, or as those who know the lingo like to call it, the GWOT. So the ARPCT were our guys in the GWOT and so we bankrolled them. They were tasked with hunting down al Qaeda and eliminating them. The only problem was they did not have much support from the very people they were tasked to defend against the scourge of al Qaeda. To add insult to injury, when the people found out that the ARPCT was backed by GWB in the GWOT they actively turned on the ARPCT. So now the ARPCT is defeated and on the run. And with their defeat the Bush Administration has suffered an embarrassing setback in the GWOT.

The ARPCT is a recently rebranded group of Somali warlords who were funded by the United States. They were just routed in the Somali capital of Mogadishu by Islamist militants. The ARPCT warlords are now on the run as the Islamists, known as the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), establish control over war-torn Somalia. The United States claims that the ironically named ICU harbor al Qaeda members and therefore pose a danger to the civilized world. The ICU has thus been branded as "terrorists" for harboring al Qaeda. Seeing an opportunity to cash in, the always opportunistic Somali warlords refashioned themselves into a group of  "anti-terrorist" militias. In the "us" versus "them" world of George W Bush, these thugs became "us" and thus became worthy of our support.

Since February, with US financial backing, the ARPCT has engaged in fierce fighting with the ICU. But the ICU gained influence in Somalia by offering the people what they had been craving for decades – a sense of security and stability. When the warlords decided to stop fighting each other and rebrand themselves as the ARPCT they were now fighting against the stability provided or promised by the ICU. The people of Somalia were tired of the warlords and rejected the ARPCT in favor of the ICU. One by one, towns fell under the control of the ICU as they advanced on Mogadishu, until finally Mogadishu also fell a few days ago.

The talibanization of Somalia has begun. Just like in Afghanistan, the Somali people are unsurprisingly choosing security over constant violence and insecurity. With no functioning central government, the people have turned to the ICU for protection. In return, the people have accepted Islamist control over their lives. This is an essential concept that the Bush Administration repeatedly fails to understand. If given a choice between democracy without security and security without democracy, the people will overwhelmingly choose the latter. Failure to grasp this obvious fact and wallowing in an ideological soup that preaches "freedom is on the march" will have the opposite effect. In fact, in much of the world where the United States has engaged militarily in the GWOT, freedom is on the ropes. This is true for Afghanistan, this is true for Iraq, and this is true for Somalia.

Somalia, like Iraq and Afghanistan, has a complex political landscape that does not lend itself to the simplistic "us" and "them" rhetoric. There are no good guys in Somalia. The very warlords who now claim to be "anti-terrorist" forces were fighting the United States and presumably harboring al Qaeda in 1993. These are some of the very people who fought the United States during the first Battle of Mogadishu, which led to the deaths of 18 American servicemen. The Bush Administration has now decided to break bread with these thugs in an ill-conceived attempt at counter terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

What the Somali people crave is stability and security. The United States, instead of backing warlords, should perhaps try a defter approach instead. If Iraq has taught us anything, it should be that killing people is not the best way to win hearts and minds.

In an article in the Washington Post, John Prendergast argues for a more balanced counter-terrorism strategy to salvage the situation in Somalia. He states in part:

A successful counterterrorism effort would require the United States to pull the political and military threads together into a coherent strategy of broader engagement. U.S. officials and those from other governments throughout the region uniformly have told me that long-term counterterrorism objectives can be achieved only by American investment in the Somali peace process. Yet the State Department has just one full-time political officer working on Somalia — from neighboring Kenya, and he was just transferred out of the region for dissenting from the policy on proxy warlords. Somalia’s ineffectual transitional government remains confined to the shaky central town of Baidoa, where it is still struggling to overcome internal divisions.

A functioning government that could ensure security would be a win-win scenario for Somalis and the United States, enabling the state apparatus to address the criminality and extremism that undermine progress in the country. This would provide a real partner for the war on terrorism in an area that has a track record for exporting trouble.

The continuation of Washington’s current approach in Somalia would ensure that U.S. interests and those of other countries in the region remain dangerously vulnerable to terrorist attacks from this collapsed state. Continued fighting between Islamist elements and the U.S.-backed warlord alliance will breed resentment, attract recruits to the extremist cause and provide a training ground for new militants. The United States can no longer afford not to engage more deeply and directly in state reconstruction efforts in Somalia. It is in our national security interest to do so. [Emphasis added by me.]

Support for Somalia does not mean boots on the ground. After the experience of the 1990s it would be foolhardy for the United States to return militarily to Somalia. But, the only way to prevent the slide into extremism that is occurring in Somalia is to offer the people a viable alternative to the ICU. This will require regional involvement as well as involvement from the major powers such as the United States and Western Europe.

We cannot afford to let Somalia continue as a failed state. The Somali people crave and need a stable civil society and international investment and engagement can and will lead to a secure Somalia. The war against extremism is a war for hearts and minds. What is required is a lot of butter. Leave the guns at home.

 

Posted in Foreign Policy, Terrorism | 9 Comments